User talk:Kreepy krawly

Welcome!

Hello, Kreepy krawly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! . —Centrx→talk • 20:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like some of the ideas you came up with. I agree that Wikipedia could be a beginning-stage paradigm for something greater. I see that what you're proposing could be a global forum, an equal-voice landscape, and could help obtain a united world democracy(eventually). But those are just some initial sketches. I think it might be a valid idea to collaborate on some declaration for the equal voice of all people, but that would take more interest and agreement in the topic than you have now.

On another note, if you haven't read Ender's Game(Orson Scott Card) and the rest of that series, you probably should. It has some similar ideas to yours that i'm sure you could build on as you construct a rhetorical argument. Let me know if you want mediation again, I'd be happy to help on this subject. Nonbankfiddle 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just copying and pasting what i had to say on the discussion you sparked in the policy section of the village pump... let me know if you're still interested in any of it (i apologize for the poor punctuation and generally sophomoric writing style):

yar. since we're looking wikipedia possibly being a paradigm for something greater, why not relate it to history? it seems that empires, religions, political theories and pretty much any other feasible coalition of humans starts off with a vision, which then grows in popularity, but always eventually becomes corrupt, bureaucratic and functioning on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of its original creation. religions are probably the best example of this... positively spreading the enlightenment of the founder in order to enhance people's spiritual outlooks eventually turns into institutionalized regimes that ignorantly function on irrelevant customs and beliefs. it is safe to assume that wikipedia has or will at some point reach this turning point. but its policies of consensus and democracy are some of the greatest in history; if it were a country it would be close to a utopia. so why not see what happens when some human-made thing reaches this point but DOESN'T fall burning to the ground? in order to proceed where everything else has fallen, adaptation must become a priority. i'm not exactly sure where i'm going... i didn't get enough sleep last night... does this make any sense?

Lord mortekai 02:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you rant, consider this[edit]

I refer to your post on the Village pump, regarding my suggestion to add a blog tab to the article space. I think your calling editors and admins who want to restrict the content of the Wikipedia "sociopaths" is a misunderstanding of the dynamics of what is happening here. Here is my take on what is happening here:

The Wikipedia, in spite of itself, is showing many of the characteristics of a revolutionary movement. It starts out with a brilliant vision, with a loose organization bordering on anarchy, held together almost entirely by the shared zeal of its partisans. As realization of its goal approaches, the community's revolutionary zeal exceeds the scope of its task. This is a terrifying state for most people: a huge ball of energy barreling through space to - where? And people respond to this by trying to cobble the energy, to force it into restraints. This is the stage where bureaucracy tries to overcome initiative. I will give you the most obvious symptom of this decay: people have started talking to each other in acronyms. What are we here, the US Army? Oy!

So it is not ill will that is driving this new generation of admins. It is the fear that the Wikipedia is getting out of control. And the fear is real. Wikipedia is off on its own, and no one knows where it is going. Even the sacred five pillars are cracking under the burden of the creativity of more than a million editors.

I think that the dedication of admins to the creation and enforcement of policies is worthy not of disdain but of pity. In any case, it is not worth getting upset about, because their efforts are doomed to failure. --Ravpapa 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comment[edit]

I refer to some of the content of your essays at the Village Pump. I have struck through some lines which comment upon another editor. No Personal Attacks states that all comment should be on content and not the contributor. I offer you the chance to self revert your comments. To be clear, this is a first and only warning not to engage in personal attacks you will receive regarding your comments. LessHeard vanU 13:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moderating your comments, and your message on my talkpage. I would comment that I have moved the debate to a subpage of the Village pump, named Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Trivia is what Wikipedia does best. The debate was making the original page a little "top heavy". LessHeard vanU 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When talking to users[edit]

Please put your comments on the user's talk pages. Not their user page. Thank you. Gscshoyru 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your comments were moved to a subpage where the discussion can continue -- it's not vandalism. You were told this, so you had no reason to accuse him of vandalism. Gscshoyru 20:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gscshoyru 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionalized Vandalism, a newly recognized phenomenon on Wikipedia[edit]

Our group has now recognized 2 Institutional Vandals, and this is a message to tell you that you are the second identified, and all actions by this user are being databased for trend identification. It is unfortunate you would choose to sideline such an important issue, but there are other ways this issue will be brought back to the main forum. It will amuse us to observe what we call an IV Admin use Admin tools to bury embarassing topics. This just proves our point, and the world will soon discover that Wikipedia, as important as it is, can no longer function as it was intended, or as it should, because of the shortsighted and illogical actions of a few entrenched users with unique controls. Such is life. Kreepy krawly 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not buried. it's been moved so it doesn't dominate the page, but the conversation just exists in the subpage. It's not vandalism, and I'm not a vandal. Also, I'm not an admin -- I have no more power than you do. Your accusations are unfounded, please calm down and stay WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Gscshoyru 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could not be privy to the future policies of Wikipedia as described in the "X" manual. The recent actions of this user are not appreciated and are becoming distracting. Please cease interaction. NEVER is it the place of another user to accuse Kreepy krawly of a need to calm down, as no such calming down is necessary or will occur. It is suggested that is user offer constructive contributions to the Process rather than focus energy on the benevolent, if upsetting, actions of Kreepy krawly. It's not worth it. Think about it. Think. And we are not obliged to discuss and divulge explanations to identified IV's. We thank our esteemed colleagues in advance for their careful understanding and useful future contributions. Kreepy krawly 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? And "X" manual? I have no clue what you're talking about, and if you continue to be uncivil and make unconstructive edits, I will continue to warn you and revert them, ok? Please stop. Gscshoyru 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user will not become privy to the meaning of "X" manual, as that indication is for the non-Wikipedians, or "X's," who are following the developments of acrimony related to the original string: Trivia is what Wikipedia does best; Wikipedia has become bigger than itself. Please stay away from the Kreepy krawly talk page. This needs to be the end of this. Kreepy krawly 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's it. I'm taking this to WP:ANI, since I'm not really sure what to do about it. You're welcome to make your comments there, once I post. Gscshoyru 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy of Wikipedia is to be an open source Encyclopedia, to be built by any individual who is willing to devote a little time and effort in contributing toward it. As such the policy is maintained and endorsed by the continued contributions by the mass volunteers editorship. Among those volunteers are those who believe that their best contributions lay in the management of the trivia of maintaining the encyclopedia. To give an impression of their responsibilities, and relative lack of power, they are known as administrators. However, not all of these mundane functions are carried out by administrators; other contributors also act to help maintain the encyclopedia. Ultimately, though, the purpose of the encyclopedia is the encyclopedia.

That is to say, what you believe and what you propose requires the consensus of a significant percentage of the editorship to be effective. I would argue that as long as your thoughts on the matter are available to the general readership then the forum on which they exist is irrelevant. After x amount of days the number of new readers coming across your (for want of a better word) essay at the village pump and deciding to participate diminishes. Indeed, how many new readers of the pump simply looks at the length and decide to look at something less taxing? However, as an essay it remains visible for as long as the page exists. You can direct persons there, and conduct your debate there, advertise its content, refer to it in different venues, free from the constraints of the previous forum; there will not be a 7 day period after which it is archived, and people are often prepared to study and respond to an essay in a manner different to policy discussion.

If you believe the above to be vandalism, then I would suggest that your understanding of Wikipedia is not as embracing - or as valid - as you may think. Oh, and FYI, there is no need to id me. My name is Mark Slater, I live near Helston in Cornwall. I neither fear or dislike you, you are just another volunteer of whom it is my pleasure to assist (even if you don't care or like the assistance provided). LessHeard vanU 21:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: THE ABOVE COMMENTS ARE NOT PART OF THE CONCURRENT STRING. THEY ARE THE OPINION OF User: LessHeard vanU and are to be viewed on that scale.

Warning[edit]

Warning - for contentious editing, and WP:CIVIL / WP:AGF violations, in these edits: [1], [2]. Please keep conversations civil, functional, and to the point.Wikidemo 20:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comments on User talk:Wikidemo: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please stop marking people, as whatever you call them, and please stop trolling. Thank you. Gscshoyru 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48h[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconceivable. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

You do not tell us what are constructive contributions, as constructive contributions are impossible until the problems surrounding the treatment of trivia are fixed. So any dialougue about trivia is constructive. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS I'M USING HERE ? LET ME REFER TO MY DICTIONARY AND THESARUS SO I CAN COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY: THE TRIVIA POLICY IS WRONG AND MUST BE FIXED. UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, I WILL BE DISCUSSING TRIVIA, AND ONLY DISCUSSING TRIVIA. ONCE I AM SATISFIED, I MAY, IF I SO CHOOSE, AND IN THE HOUR OF MY CHOOSING, ADD CONTENT.Bold text I'M NOT A MERE EDITOR, I DON'T JUST GO TO EXISTING ARTICLES AND EDIT. I ADD CONTENT, BUT THAT WON'T HAPPEN UNLESS CERTAIN ENTITIES LEARN TO PLAY NICE IN THEIR OWN SANDBOX ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLAYGROUND.

This block means nothing. There are thousands of others who can take my place. How unfortunate that a CHOICE would be made that would be so detrimental to Wikipedia. But we all have choices, don't we ? In the real world, and in cyberspace. CHOICES. CHOICES. CHOICES. My mother taught me to MAKE GOOD CHOICES. What lessons has this community, under the guise of certain entities, brought to Wikipedia ? What demonstrations has it made recently.

Reasons ? Oh my esteemed colleague, reason has already been attempted. I spent hours composing messages with reasons. I saw nothing to indicate a use of reason in response, only irrational diatribes. There are behind-the-scenes collusions occurring here that are beyond recourse. Such a sad way to conduct business. Now Wikipedia has proven to the world that it is defunct. It's been swell. Good luck with the mess. Remember, it was YOUR CHOICE. Signed, your friend forever, with the backing of thousands, Kreepy krawly. Hugs and kisses. Kreepy krawly 13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems my esteemed colleage has a grudge to settle, as there are no actual grounds for this block, and not one shred of evidence of disruption has been offered. But I am guilty of stubbornness (let's refer to the actual policy, copied for our edification below:)

Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.

SO IF YOU ARE SO CONFIDENT IN MY ABUSE OF WIKIPEDIA, DETAIL, I SAID DETAIL, I CAN'T SAY THIS LOUD ENOUGH, *********I******** **********SAID******** *********DETAIL********* YOUR EVIDENCE OF ABUSE. I AWAIT THE ANSWER FROM MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE, AS I'M SURE THIS ENTITY DESIRES TO BE ON THE SIDE OF REASON AND JUSTICE. AS THIS ENTITY IS AN ADMINISTRATOR, WE CAN ONLY HOPE THIS IS THE CASE, BUT MY HOPES ARE NOT HIGH. PROVE TO US THAT LEGITIMATE, RATIONAL DISCUSSION IS POSSIBLE. Kreepy krawly 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might fare better if you understood what those "collusions" really are.

See: http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11079 http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15627 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13766 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15892 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13611 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15243 Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]